The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
Agree. That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.
At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security. One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming. Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services. I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.
You can't know that. What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)? What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers. How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer? They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy. Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?
Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming. It's not always about privacy and security. And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible. Completely different from a company like Facebook.
There was a time when the feds were able to ban convertibles on the grounds of safety. This was overturned by the courts, basically (if I remember correctly), on the grounds that the regulation is tantamount to the feds getting too far into a business in which it has no expertise at all: designing automobiles.
Side loading is a product design feature of an operating system. Android chooses to offer it, Apple does not. The same reasoning used for convertibles applies here.
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
Agree. That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.
At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security. One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming. Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services. I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.
You can't know that. What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)? What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers. How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer? They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy. Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?
Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming. It's not always about privacy and security. And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible. Completely different from a company like Facebook.
But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data. What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device. If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store. You will not be forced to side load apps.
Respond without reading, much?
Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
That's not true for Google Play, so why would it be true for the App Store?
Outside of one particular high-profile developer who originally thought they would bypass paying Google's app fee and go direct,only to backpedal when it didn't pan out profit-wise, it just doesn't happen. That was Epic BTW.
If it a good app that can see a profit they'll put their app in Google Play if they make an Android app at all, just as they will in the App Store for an iOS app.
Google Play doesn't require apps to disclose their data tracking practices and give consumers the option to decline.
Oh, but it does much of it already, and will improve even more with this years Android 12. Search Privacy Dashboard.
There's no app now that gets installed on my Pixel without disclosing every permission and why, and my express agreement to each or none of them on an individual basis. That's been true for a few years now. Already in progress this year, Google is implementing rules that require developers to disclose data collection practices in a similar move to Apple's (Thank you Apple). That's active now and becomes mandatory within about 10 months. https://siliconangle.com/2021/05/06/google-will-require-android-apps-disclose-data-collection-practices/
Were you aware that just four years ago AppStore execs were advocating app vetting tools based on what Google's Play Store developed? Until you become more informed about Android, its security practices, and device privacy options you'll continue to misunderstand but comment as thought you "know".
As noted in the Apple White Paper, a Nokia 2020 Threat Intelligence Report indicted that Android devices had 15 times more infections from malicious software than iPhone in 2020. Apple was being kind in reporting this number, because that's down from 55 times more infections on Android than iOS devices in 2019. Yay, Android, down to terrible from abysmal. If they continue to improve, they might get down to just plain bad. So no, I am still not interested in Apple being forced to emulate Android's practices. You can spin it and sugar coat it, but Apple is and has been far ahead of Android in maintaining user security and privacy. That's in no small part because of the locked-down nature of iOS, which is possible because - unlike Google - Apple's business model is not built on selling its customers personal data. Even you noted the recent and pending improvements to Google's practices are motivated by competition from Apple. Forcing Apple to adopt Google's practices weakens competition; it doesn't improve it.
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
Agree. That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.
At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security. One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming. Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services. I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.
You can't know that. What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)? What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers. How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer? They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy. Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?
Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming. It's not always about privacy and security. And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible. Completely different from a company like Facebook.
But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data. What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?
Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps. But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all. When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy. If there was a possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app.
The Libertarian / Free to do whatever I want crowd always tends to ignore the consequences of their actions.
In this case, Apple's review and oversight of apps adds stability and security to my iPhone that I simply cannot get any other way. So again, Thank You Apple.
Some might argue: Well give the user the Choice! But that's another bullshit argument.
Once Apple allows sideloading, more and more vendors will simply avoid the hassle and expense of going through the app store -- and iOS will become as porous, unreliable and insecure as Android or Windows.
While some might scream: "Don't take away my free choice!"
I say: "Don't take away my reliability and security!"
If that Apple App store si so good for developers, as Apple have been saying, there is no reason for them to leave the App Store, don't you think?
Developers want Apple's customers, but many don't want Apple's rules. Because Apple doesn't pursue the low-end hardware market, their customers are more lucrative than average. So developers will currently go through the hoops to get into Apple's App store. That does not mean that if they were given the option to sidestep that process and those requirements that they wouldn't choose to do that. The fact that Epic, Facebook and others are spending big money on disingenuous PR campaigns and lawsuits is clear evidence that they want to be on Apple's platform, but they would greatly prefer to bypass the App Store and be free to scrape user data and collect user fees without abiding by Apple's rules or paying Apple's cut for access to a curated, more lucrative customer base.
If given the option, many developers would bypass the app store in a heartbeat if they could.
So, for instance, millions of iPhone users currently have the Facebook app loaded on their iPhone, and they can (and do) choose to say no to Facebook's request to track them through that app and across the internet in order to package and sell the resulting data. The moment Apple is forced to allow side-loading of apps outside the App Store, Facebook will be out, and millions of iPhone users will have to either quit Facebook or succumb to Facebook's undisclosed data mining practices.
So yes, there are plenty of reasons for developers to leave the App Store, and few or none of them are actually good for consumers.
Again, if the App Store is so good for developers and customers as Apple said, most developers, will stay in the App Store. If Facebook decides to go out of the app store that's a win for customers, don't you think?
Nope - it's a los for the customers who get Facebook someplace else without the security & privacy the Apple App Store provides.
Agree. That's an example on why most of the time I wouldn't go outside of the app store if, for some reason, Apple open iOS for side load apps.
At the same time, it's not always about privacy and security. One example are streaming game services, like Xbox GamePass w/ Cloud Gaming. Sometime Apple create nonsense rules that block good services. I don't think I would have any privacy or security issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app.
You can't know that. What if it's a "knock-off" you get by accident (and all the problems that would come with)? What if Microsoft decides to rape your private info, without telling you?
An Xbox / GamePass customer already gave the information to MS, the same way many customers do with Google, Netflix, Amazon and Spotify, among other developers. How is Apple protecting my private info if I already gave it to MS or any other developer? They already know my preferences from the things I play, watch and buy. Do you think that Apple should remove those app since they cannot completely control customers privacy?
Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming. It's not always about privacy and security. And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible. Completely different from a company like Facebook.
But Apple makes them *tell* you what they are doing with that data. What about a rogue app (imposter you accidentally installed)?
Would it make any difference, considering the customer trusted the developer enough to gave his data?
Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps. But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all. When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy. If there was a possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app.
Sure it was - each game in the cloud gaming app was required to inform the user of the data it collected, and how it would use it, and allow the user to opt out. Apple could not enforce it within the Xbox Cloud Gaming app. Apple then offered to allow the cloud gaming, as long as each game in it was "listed" separately in Apple's App Store so they could enforce this. Microsoft declined.
More ridiculous FUD from Apple. I don't need Apple to provide guard rails. I suppose some do, but there certainly must be a way of providing power users with the ability to sideload apps, while keeping average users within the guard rails.
It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device. If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store. You will not be forced to side load apps.
Respond without reading, much?
Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
That's not true for Google Play, so why would it be true for the App Store?
Outside of one particular high-profile developer who originally thought they would bypass paying Google's app fee and go direct,only to backpedal when it didn't pan out profit-wise, it just doesn't happen. That was Epic BTW.
If it a good app that can see a profit they'll put their app in Google Play if they make an Android app at all, just as they will in the App Store for an iOS app.
Google Play doesn't require apps to disclose their data tracking practices and give consumers the option to decline.
Oh, but it does much of it already, and will improve even more with this years Android 12. Search Privacy Dashboard.
There's no app now that gets installed on my Pixel without disclosing every permission and why, and my express agreement to each or none of them on an individual basis. That's been true for a few years now. Already in progress this year, Google is implementing rules that require developers to disclose data collection practices in a similar move to Apple's (Thank you Apple). That's active now and becomes mandatory within about 10 months. https://siliconangle.com/2021/05/06/google-will-require-android-apps-disclose-data-collection-practices/
Were you aware that just four years ago AppStore execs were advocating app vetting tools based on what Google's Play Store developed? Until you become more informed about Android, its security practices, and device privacy options you'll continue to misunderstand but comment as thought you "know".
As noted in the Apple White Paper, a Nokia 2020 Threat Intelligence Report indicted that Android devices had 15 times more infections from malicious software than iPhone in 2020... If they continue to improve, they might get down to just plain bad.
So no, I am still not interested in Apple being forced to emulate Android's practices.
That "15 times more" equates to how many smartphones as a percentage of the total? Could it be less than 1/4 of 1%? That's hardly something concerning IMO, especially considering the vast majority of what is deemed "malware" is adware. I have the full report too.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.
When you go into a restaurant, there is generally only one place to buy apps for consumption in that restaurant, too. You have the freedom to go to another restaurant to get their apps at any point, but it is not a generally accepted practice to be allowed to buy third party appetizers in a restaurant.
That analogy isn't quite right. A food court would be a better analogy as the food that's being sold is not entirely made by 1 vendor just like all apps in the app store aren't made by apple. Imagine you wanted to sell food to customers who shop at a high end mall. Now you are told in order to sell food to them you have to do so in the mall's food court. The rent for spot is higher than the average rent. Furthermore, you are not allowed to open your own restaurant, food truck and etc within 100 miles of the mall. Sure you can go 100 miles away but those are different clienteles.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.
Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices. Apple. This does not make it a monopoly.
It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android. Consumers have a choice.
1. Apple makes some of the IOS apps,
2. Apple does not make all the IOS apps.
The monopoly isn't about Apple making apple devices either, the monopoly lies in the way that you can get, sell and install the apps. There is only 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
As for consumer choice, there is no consumer choice. You're confusing all "apps" vs "IOS Apps". There are many ways to get "apps" but 1 way to get IOS apps.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.
Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices. Apple. This does not make it a monopoly.
It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android. Consumers have a choice.
1. Apple makes some of the IOS apps,
2. Apple does not make all the IOS apps.
The monopoly isn't about Apple making apple devices either, the monopoly lies in the way that you can get, sell and install the apps. There is only 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
As for consumer choice, there is no consumer choice. You're confusing all "apps" vs "IOS Apps". There are many ways to get "apps" but 1 way to get IOS apps.
You missed the point. It's Apples product and Apples ecosystem. Apple sets the rules. Period.
There is consumer choice - Android. Don't like Apple's mobile products/ecosystem/rules? Buy Android.
What do you think about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft's gaming systems? They only allow "apps" (games generally, but not necessarily - Plex, VLC, etc.) to be sold through their App Store & mandate the same % cut. Their products, their ecosystems, their rules.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps).
Apple chose to use the console model for software distribution for iOS. The console model is not a violation of antitrust laws. For example, Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the U.S. where the judge ruled that Nintendo's total control of software on the platform did not constitute an antitrust violation. Apple also won a major lawsuit against Psystar in the U.S. where part of the ruling said that Apple's computer hardware could not be considered a monopoly in and of itself. The judge cited Apple's extensive use of advertising for its hardware products as proof that it was part of a competitive market.
This is not about platform or hardware, this is about selling/getting products. I can go to best buy, game stop, amazon, Walmart, target, and etc and buy a Nintendo game. That's 5 places off the top of my head where a game can be purchased (outside of the official Nintendo store). Can i walk into any of those stores for an IOS game? No. There difference between Nintendo and Apple is that, Nintendo gave consumers other venues to purchase their goods.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps).
Apple chose to use the console model for software distribution for iOS. The console model is not a violation of antitrust laws. For example, Nintendo won a major lawsuit in the U.S. where the judge ruled that Nintendo's total control of software on the platform did not constitute an antitrust violation. Apple also won a major lawsuit against Psystar in the U.S. where part of the ruling said that Apple's computer hardware could not be considered a monopoly in and of itself. The judge cited Apple's extensive use of advertising for its hardware products as proof that it was part of a competitive market.
This is not about platform or hardware, this is about selling/getting products. I can go to best buy, game stop, amazon, Walmart, target, and etc and buy a Nintendo game. That's 5 places off the top of my head where a game can be purchased (outside of the official Nintendo store). Can i walk into any of those stores for an IOS game? No. There difference between Nintendo and Apple is that, Nintendo gave consumers other venues to purchase their goods.
Do you understand that even there, Nintendo still gets their 30%, approves the game, etc.? Not so different, huh?
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.
Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices. Apple. This does not make it a monopoly.
It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android. Consumers have a choice.
1. Apple makes some of the IOS apps,
2. Apple does not make all the IOS apps.
The monopoly isn't about Apple making apple devices either, the monopoly lies in the way that you can get, sell and install the apps. There is only 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
As for consumer choice, there is no consumer choice. You're confusing all "apps" vs "IOS Apps". There are many ways to get "apps" but 1 way to get IOS apps.
You missed the point. It's Apples product and Apples ecosystem. Apple sets the rules. Period.
There is consumer choice - Android. Don't like Apple's mobile products/ecosystem/rules? Buy Android.
What do you think about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft's gaming systems? They only allow "apps" (games generally, but not necessarily - Plex, VLC, etc.) to be sold through their App Store & mandate the same % cut. Their products, their ecosystems, their rules.
You can get Nintendo, Sony, or Xbox games from best buy, target, Wal-mart and etc. So no, there are other "venues" to buy their games outside of their official store.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly.
Yep - because there's only one company that makes iOS & iOS compatible devices. Apple. This does not make it a monopoly.
It's their product and consumers can decide to buy it, or buy Android. Consumers have a choice.
1. Apple makes some of the IOS apps,
2. Apple does not make all the IOS apps.
The monopoly isn't about Apple making apple devices either, the monopoly lies in the way that you can get, sell and install the apps. There is only 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
As for consumer choice, there is no consumer choice. You're confusing all "apps" vs "IOS Apps". There are many ways to get "apps" but 1 way to get IOS apps.
You missed the point. It's Apples product and Apples ecosystem. Apple sets the rules. Period.
There is consumer choice - Android. Don't like Apple's mobile products/ecosystem/rules? Buy Android.
What do you think about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft's gaming systems? They only allow "apps" (games generally, but not necessarily - Plex, VLC, etc.) to be sold through their App Store & mandate the same % cut. Their products, their ecosystems, their rules.
You can get Nintendo, Sony, or Xbox games from best buy, target, Wal-mart and etc. So no, there are other "venues" to buy their games outside of their official store.
Do you understand that even at Best Buy, Wal-mart, etc., Nintendo still gets their 30%, approves the game, etc.? Not so different, huh?
It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device. If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store. You will not be forced to side load apps.
Bull
So you think any change will force users to side-load outside of the AppStore?
Nice spin!
But, of course not what I said.
Strawmen are the argument of those who have none.
But, I sympathize with you: How can a Google shill bring Apple down to the level of Google using facts and logic? You have a tough job!
It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device. If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store. You will not be forced to side load apps.
Respond without reading, much?
Let me review for you: I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
That's not true for Google Play, so why would it be true for the App Store?
Outside of one particular high-profile developer who originally thought they would bypass paying Google's app fee and go direct,only to backpedal when it didn't pan out profit-wise, it just doesn't happen. That was Epic BTW.
If it a good app that can see a profit they'll put their app in Google Play if they make an Android app at all, just as they will in the App Store for an iOS app.
Google Play doesn't require apps to disclose their data tracking practices and give consumers the option to decline. The Apple App Store does. I guarantee that Facebook - and many of Google's apps - will head straight out of the App Store the second they have the option to do so. In fact, they'll probably set up a legit-seeming "alternative" app store right away to get consumer-protection-free apps on iPhones as quickly as they can.
True -- But also, why would a large developer stick around the App Store and continue paying out 30% ?
The App store obviously benefits Apple users far more than developers -- particularly large developers who do their own marketing.
Everyone has been going back and forth but at the end of the day, let me put it in this way:
There is 1 place where you can get IOS apps.
There is 1 place where a developer can sell IOS apps
There is 1 place where you can buy IOS apps.
Notice how it's always "1" place? This is the main issue, and in this regards Apple does have a monopoly (since only apple can sell IOS apps). Apple isn't denying this but also not acknowledging it because it's stupid to do so. Their statements/counterpoints about security and etc so far all point toward one narrative and for one outcome. And the outcome is to disallow side loading apps, disallow 3rd party app stores and for Apple to be the sole gatekeeper, in other words have a monopoly PROTECT THE PRIVACY AND SECURITY OF ITS USERS.
Fixed that for you! What happened? You forgot to read the article before posting?
It’s one thing to warn people against the practice, it’s another to prohibit people from doing something on devices they own.
if I wanted to install Android on my iPhone (not that I ever wanted to) I should be able to do it: it’s my damn hardware.
Apple can warn against a practice, refuse software support for devices with sideloaded apps, etc. but prohibiting, is another matter.
Having used NeXTstep (aka macOS, iOS, Darwin) since version 0.8 I’d like to e.g. run a NeXT emulation software. With a “huge” hard drive back then being 8GB (split in four 2GB partitions) and a lot of RAM being 128MB, emulating a NeXT cube and running legacy software is something the iPad Pro can do without breaking a sweat. But it’s not possible without side loading and even that was sabotaged in the latest iOS releases. For no good reason, on a device of that class. Running things well isolated in a virtual machine isn’t or shouldn’t be a security risk.
Heck even running virtualized macOS or Windows should not be an issue, that’s the whole point of virtual machines. Heck, Apple could run a virtual iOS session for third-party apps, totally isolated from the AppStore side of things.
The excuses Apple brings for saving its revenue stream are transparent and invalid, at least as far as the latest crop of devices and their powerful hardware is concerned.
You have the option to buy all the ‘freedom’ you want by purchasing an Android device.
I want the option to buy the device with the secure, locked down OS. Forcing Apple to adopt Android’s model would take that choice away from me. And no, I wouldn’t then be able to stay the same by choosing to only buy apps through the App Store. Clearly some developers of apps currently available through the App Store would choose to avoid it if they can. They want Apple’s customers, but they’d rather bypass Apple’s rules so they can scrape more user data and/or extract more money by shadier means. So I would lose options while you would gain different branded hardware with an Android-like experience. This would be a reduction of consumer choice disguised as “freedom.”
Ironically, the only way left after that for consumers to (inefficiently and ineffectively) regain some of the lost iOS security and privacy protections would be through increased government interference and regulations of apps and operating systems.
I think @rcfa point is let the customer choose what to do with their device. If Apple decide to allow side loading of apps, it won't change the security and privacy for people like you, considering you still have access to the App Store. You will not be forced to side load apps.
Bull
So you think any change will force users to side-load outside of the AppStore?
Nice spin!
But, of course not what I said.
Strawmen are the argument of those who have none.
But, I sympathize with you: How can a Google shill bring Apple down to the level of Google using facts and logic? You have a tough job!
Then why did you comment with one word, "Bull". Typically that means something the OP said wasn't true. So what was it?
... Adults know what they are getting themselves into when making a product purchase......
...
I literally laughed out loud when I read that nonsense!
That was the same argument the scammers used to justify how they created the Great Recession in 2008!
You just dusted it off and reused it.
How many people, how many corporations, how many governments have been hacked and scammed by con artists....
Sorry, this isn't Never, Never Land.
iPhones are far more secure than Android or Windows machines because of things like the App Store clearing apps so I can rely on my iPhone to stay secure.
Comments
Again, sometimes Apple create nonsense rules that block valid services, as GamesPass Cloud Gaming. It's not always about privacy and security. And I would have no issues side loading the Xbox Cloud Gaming app if it's possible. Completely different from a company like Facebook.
Side loading is a product design feature of an operating system. Android chooses to offer it, Apple does not. The same reasoning used for convertibles applies here.
Rouge apps is a different story, and I 'm aware that the App Store is the safest way to install apps. But to think that every side loaded app could compromise the security and privacy is not true at all. When Apple blocked the Xbox Cloud Gaming app, it was about how the app worked and not about security or privacy. If there was a possibility to side load that app, it would not compromised the device security or privacy, at least based in the reasons Apple gave to reject the app.
I have the full report too.
There is consumer choice - Android. Don't like Apple's mobile products/ecosystem/rules? Buy Android.
What do you think about Nintendo, Sony or Microsoft's gaming systems? They only allow "apps" (games generally, but not necessarily - Plex, VLC, etc.) to be sold through their App Store & mandate the same % cut. Their products, their ecosystems, their rules.
You can get Nintendo, Sony, or Xbox games from best buy, target, Wal-mart and etc. So no, there are other "venues" to buy their games outside of their official store.
Apple's platform, Apple's rules.
What happened? You forgot to read the article before posting?